You shouldn't try to intuit the rationale for these things from the synopsis. Compatibility with other programming languages is only one of many considerations that go into these decisions. In the case of ?: we felt the Huffman coding of it was too short, and we wanted individual ? and : for other purposes. Be thankful we do think about compatibility with other languages, or we wouldn't have made the new operator resemble the C operator at all. As it is, we get the nice side benefit that ??:: now looks like all the other double-char short-circuit operators. And we can now use the single character versions for more important things.
in reply to Re: Synopsis 3 is out
in thread Synopsis 3 is out